What should you look for before calculating?
GMAC describes Multi-Source Reasoning as work involving multiple sources, such as text, tables, or charts. Some questions ask you to identify a discrepancy between sources; others ask you to draw a conclusion or distinguish relevant information. You do not need to memorize the entire case.
Our method is to assign a role to each source: rule, measurement, explanation, or update. Then read the question and return to the relevant source. A more recent date does not automatically replace all earlier data; read exactly what the update changes.
Which projects qualify for the grant?
The following three sources are fictional and written by Upsilar. Amounts are in thousands of dollars. They are presented in tabs for ease of use; each source keeps its text and table accessible.
Policy — 2 June
A project qualifies for a grant if its eligible cost is no more than $60,000 and its verified annual energy saving is at least 80 MWh. Each qualifying project receives a grant equal to 25 percent of its eligible cost. Shipping is included in eligible cost.
Project register — 4 June
All costs include shipping. These are the values recorded before the update dated 6 June.
| Project | Eligible cost ($000) | Verified saving (MWh/year) |
|---|---|---|
| Alder | 56 | 84 |
| Birch | 60 | 78 |
| Cedar | 64 | 96 |
Update — 6 June
The verified annual energy saving for Birch has been revised from 78 to 82 MWh. A supplier has reduced Cedar’s eligible cost by $4,000. All other figures and the grant policy remain unchanged.
Which statements are supported by the full case?
Answer each statement separately. Your reasoning should name the original data, any changes, and the policy condition. Explanations are available in the worked solution.
After the 6 June update, determine whether each statement is supported: (1) All three projects qualify. (2) Birch receives a $15,000 grant. (3) Cedar receives a larger grant than Birch.
Enter your answer before viewing the review.
The solution, step by step
(1) Yes. (2) Yes. (3) No.
The method in action
- Alder remains at 56 and 84, meeting both thresholds. Birch’s energy savings increase to 82 MWh while its cost is 60. Cedar’s cost falls to 60, with 96 MWh in savings. All three projects qualify.
- Birch receives 25% of $60,000, or $15,000. Its revised energy savings determine eligibility, not the grant amount.
- Cedar also receives 25% of $60,000, or $15,000. Under this policy, greater energy savings do not result in a larger grant.
- Answering no to (1) overlooks an update; answering no to (2) may apply the percentage to the savings; answering yes to (3) confuses a threshold with the calculation base.
The pitfall
The last source is not a complete new case
The June 6 update does not include all costs or savings, so you must combine it with the register. It also does not let you invent a change for Alder. A targeted update leaves other information unchanged when it says so.
Likewise, “no more than” includes equality: a cost of 60 meets the cap. If you mentally replace that threshold with “less than,” you incorrectly exclude Birch and Cedar despite reading the amounts correctly.
What should you note to avoid unnecessary back-and-forth?
One line per project is enough here: final cost, final savings, eligibility. Do not copy every sentence. Also note the cost unit so you do not report a $15 grant instead of $15,000.
When reviewing your work, distinguish a navigation error from a reasoning error. Did you miss the update tab, misunderstand a threshold, or apply the rate to the wrong base? Each cause calls for a different exercise. Rushing through the full case again without identifying the cause will preserve the same mistakes.
To improve, create a controlled variation: savings of 79 MWh or a final cost of $61,000. State which decision changes and why. This checks whether you understand how the sources relate, beyond the three answers in the case.
Key takeaways
- Assign a role to each source.
- Apply an update only within its stated scope.
- A strong answer connects the rule, the data, and the question.